WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

[Brooxy]

Seeing as there is an argument about religion afoot, I thought it was time to put in 2 cents.

First off, most religions are guidelines to being a good person throughout life, to have some sort of reward when the time comes to pass, whether this be going to eternal paradise or being reincarnated as a higher being.

So why can't we move past the texts and adopt a single ethos on life throughout humanity - with this ethos being 'don't be a dick to people - treat them how you would want to be treated'

The hypocracy of being told 'Thou shalt not kill' and then killing in the name of religion (crusades, terrorist attackets etc.) is just one thing I don't understand.

Also I don't get people that won't use contraception because a religious document said it is forbidden, but are still having premarital sex, despite the same document saying that premarital sex is also forbidden. Surely with religion it should be a case of all or nothing...

I await your flames...

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

My question is why? Why should homosexual couples be considered "equal" to heterosexual couples when, fundamentally, they are not?

Depends, as George Orwell would point out, on your definition of "equal".

Are we equal? No --we are both unique individuals. On the other hand, we are both humans, sharing 99.9% of our genes although we are also genetically different. We hold some similar values, but also some different ones. We have different ideologies. We are also from different cultural backgrounds --but also quite similar, in these being Western European ones. We have similar fundamental needs (food, warmth, shelter, love and belonging) even if we have different tastes and preferences. We both have dreams, ambitions, hopes, beliefs, feelings. We both bleed when cut. We have the same human rights. I'm sure we'd both argue that we have equal value. We are both equally loved by ours.

So in what way do you consider homosexual couples equal to heterosexual ones, and in what way do you consider them unequal?

[Shirty]

Man = 1 human
Woman = 1 human

Therefore:

Man + Woman = 2 humans
Man + Man = 2 humans
Woman + Woman = 2 humans

Equal. Until you introduce a non-scientific belief structure in to the equation. Arguments from procreation do not count, as there are many heterosexual couples who do not procreate.

[walle]

How can something be an absolute if people can/have to 'opt in'? That makes little sense & a weak argument.

No it doesn't and no it isn't, that which put you here, extends free will, you are also free to revolt against it at any given time. For exampe: you know it is wrong to kill, yet many decide to do so anyway, sometimes they even partake in state sponsored murder, soldiers do that, they volantarely partake, they also morally try justifiy it. The moral absolute is that killing is wrong, but society make an exception as long as the state is behind the killing, and as long as the warring enriches the psychopaths in charge....

[walle]

...

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

Using your high-level distinction one could equally ask - Why should black couples be considered "equal" to white couples when, fundamentally, they are not?

Because, lo and behold, black heterosexual couples and white heterosexual couples are fundamentally the same thing. No matter how you paint it, heterosexual and homosexual are (and always will be) fundamentally different.

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

I've actually met the guy

LOL, wrong guy...but nice try there - invoking the research of a gay atheist to support your anti-theist, pro-gay rant. The research I'm citing is by Professor Bruce Hood and it states that children are actually programmed (not "susceptible") to believe in the supernatural. Incidentally, this is not an argument for theism nor is it an argument against homosexuality; I was posting this in response to the proudly parroted atheist doggerel which holds that belief in God comes from indoctrination; it has already been debunked, long ago. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

It's simply a linguistic flourish to underline how ridiculous the christian belief is when looked at objectively.

It's not a linguistic flourish; it's woefully innacurate, pejorative, and disrespectful. If I were to start calling gay people "fags" purely because I disagree with what they choose to do, is that a fair way to underline my opinion of their behaviour? No, and I simply wouldn't do that anyway; I can disagree with people and still respect them, unlike many of the atheists in this thread.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I'm sure we'd both argue that we have equal value.

Wrong - I believe we both have objective value; you cannot believe that logically, because you are an atheist. The rest is fine.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

So in what way do you consider homosexual couples equal to heterosexual ones, and in what way do you consider them unequal?

Another inevitable impasse - because I believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, the discussion of equality is irrelevant. I may be able to demonstrate that there is inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples (I already have), and there is ongoing debate about, for example, the viability of raising children in that context and whether or not it is detrimental for children to have two parents of the same gender. No matter what is discussed, the findings or conclusions can never lead to the moral belief that homosexual couples ought not to be couples. There are the usual fallacious arguments in support of equality, but these are easy to topple.

Originally Posted by shirty

Equal. Until you introduce a non-scientific belief structure in to the equation.

Equality is not a scientific property, sorry; you need to go beyond science even to start talking about equality, rights etc. Scientifically, no two people are equal; we are all wonderfully unique - all seven billion of us. Try again.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Because, lo and behold, black heterosexual couples and white heterosexual couples are fundamentally the same thing. No matter how you paint it, heterosexual and homosexual are (and always will be) fundamentally different.

What do you mean by "fundamentally" in this context?

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Another inevitable impasse - because I believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, the discussion of equality is irrelevant. I may be able to demonstrate that there is inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples (I already have)...

Nope, you haven't. You have just stated your opinion that they are.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

...and there is ongoing debate about, for example, the viability of raising children in that context and whether or not it is detrimental for children to have two parents of the same gender. No matter what is discussed, the findings or conclusions can never lead to the moral belief that homosexual couples ought not to be couples. There are the usual fallacious arguments in support of equality, but these are easy to topple.

Ah, got you. You argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are unequal in your subjective moral framework of beliefs. I agree that the debate has as such reached an impasse. However perhaps for the sake of accuracy you should precede your statement that "Homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples" with: "I believe that...".

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Equality is not a scientific property, sorry; you need to go beyond science even to start talking about equality, rights etc. Scientifically, no two people are equal; we are all wonderfully unique - all seven billion of us. Try again.

Nope, it's a human concept, and as such subjective.

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

It's not a linguistic flourish; it's woefully innacurate, pejorative, and disrespectful. If I were to start calling gay people "fags" purely because I disagree with what they choose to do, is that a fair way to underline my opinion of their behaviour? No, and I simply wouldn't do that anyway; I can disagree with people and still respect them, unlike many of the atheists in this thread.

I think it's worth remembering Lenny, that since around 300AD up until about the 18th or 19th century, people expressing the atheistic views in this thread would have been executed for their lack of belief in your god.

So, you'll have to forgive some of the more emotive atheists if they don't have much respect for a religion that would have had them killed for their beliefs a few hundreds of years ago.

I suppose you can always forgive them

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

What do you mean by "fundamentally" in this context?

Fundamentally means foundational, basic, essential. Our sexual behaviour is a foundational and essential part of our existence, so on that view, straight couples and gay couples are fundamentally different. Men are not women, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Nope, you haven't. You have just stated your opinion that they are.

Nope, I stated that there is an objective biological inequality, and there are a host of other inequalities as well.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

You argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are unequal in your subjective moral framework of beliefs.

Nope, I argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong; I argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are unequal based on (what seems to me to be) pure common sense. Two people of the same sex are not equal to two people of the opposite sex, despite all being people.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Nope, it's a human concept, and as such subjective.

Still not about science though - equality is a moral value, not a scientific hypothesis.

@ spec,

Not buying it, sorry - "I would have been executed for it X number of years ago" is not a valid reason to show disrespect at present. I can't demand that people respect; I can only ask and lead by example... doesn't do much good, unfortunately.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Fundamentally means foundational, basic, essential. Our sexual behaviour is a foundational and essential part of our existence, so on that view, straight couples and gay couples are fundamentally different. Men are not women, and vice versa.

But both couples have sex, both bond emotionally. There is the procreational thing, but by that argument infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are fundamentally different as well.

All people are different, for a given value of "different".

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Nope, I stated that there is an objective biological inequality, and there are a host of other inequalities as well.

And similarities, of course. All people are equal, for a given value of "equal".

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Nope, I argue that homosexual behaviour is wrong; I argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are unequal based on (what seems to me to be) pure common sense. Two people of the same sex are not equal to two people of the opposite sex, despite all being people.

I am pleased that you added: "what seems to me to be".

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Still not about science though - equality is a moral value, not a scientific hypothesis.

No, it is a concept. You can use it in a moral framework, although "1 + 1 equals 2" may not get you very far.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

But both couples have sex

Obfuscation - homosexual couples cannot engage in coitus. Society's opinion of "sex" is vastly different from what sex accomplishes in the natural world: procreation. If a heterosexual coupe can't procreate because of infertility or some other medical reason, that inability, not incompatibility; two males or two females are not compatible in that way, therefore inequal.

And equality in the context of human rights is a moral value. When homosexuals talk about equality, to what are they referring if not their rights?

[VipersGratitude]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

LOL, wrong guy...but nice try there - invoking the research of a gay atheist to support your anti-theist, pro-gay rant. The research I'm citing is by Professor Bruce Hood and it states that children are actually programmed (not "susceptible") to believe in the supernatural. Incidentally, this is not an argument for theism nor is it an argument against homosexuality; I was posting this in response to the proudly parroted atheist doggerel which holds that belief in God comes from indoctrination; it has already been debunked, long ago. Let's move on.

Fair enough, different guy, same research. But you're not understanding it. The conclusion is basically that we are hardwired to project agency on to unexplained events. It is more useful to assume that there is an unseen agent rustling the bushes that to assume it's just the wind. It is this susceptibility that religion manipulates.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Obfuscation - homosexual couples cannot engage in coitus. Society's opinion of "sex" is vastly different from what sex accomplishes in the natural world: procreation. If a heterosexual coupe can't procreate because of infertility or some other medical reason, that inability, not incompatibility; two males or two females are not compatible in that way, therefore inequal.

That's a very narrow way of judging a relationship - purely on sex. I guess marriage isn't about love after all :/

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Obfuscation - homosexual couples cannot engage in coitus. Society's opinion of "sex" is vastly different from what sex accomplishes in the natural world: procreation. If a heterosexual coupe can't procreate because of infertility or some other medical reason, that inability, not incompatibility; two males or two females are not compatible in that way, therefore inequal.

In your opinion. Actually, some heterosexual couples are infertile because they are just biologically incompatible (through Rhesus factor or immunological issues).

In any case, in some animals the function of sex is not just for procreation but also for bonding. Humans are amongst such animals. And we have already covered the biological functionality of homosexual behaviours and relationships in the natural world.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

And equality in the context of human rights is a moral value. When homosexuals talk about equality, to what are they referring if not their rights?

And hence, subjective. So again the prefix: "In my opinion..." applies.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

The conclusion is basically that we are hardwired to project agency on to unexplained events.

Exactly, and we therefore need to be educated out of this hardwiring because, alas, no such agency exists. Right? You are actually supporting my argument, not challenging it, LOL.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Actually, some heterosexual couples are infertile because they are just biologically incompatible (through Rhesus factor or immunological issues).

Yes, but it's still not gender incompatibility. See my comment below.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

In any case, in some animals the function of sex is not just for procreation but also for bonding. Humans are amongst such animals.

That's besides the point - procreation requres both genders, and that's not an opinion. And on the subject of what we observe regarding the function of sex, are we to believe that all forms of sex are ligitimate simply because they happen? Why do we decry incest, rape, and bestiality?

[walle]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Actually, some heterosexual couples are infertile because they are just biologically incompatible (through Rhesus factor or immunological issues).

True, but their wiring isn't any different and their sex organs are still compatible, regardless of the Rhesus factor.

Edit: I forgot to refresh before hitting post.

[VipersGratitude]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Exactly, and we therefore need to be educated out of this hardwiring because, alas, no such agency exists. Right?

Yes and no. For instances where we could be in mortal peril (which is how it evolved) it is appropriate - Is that a burglar in the corner of my eye, or just a shadow?

However, it is not appropriate when attempting to explain less immediate questions, such as the nature of reality - We've had far, far more success in understanding reality by not assuming agency.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Yes, but it's still not gender incompatibility. See my comment below.

That depends on what function you are thinking of.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

That's besides the point - procreation requres both genders, and that's not an opinion. And on the subject of what we observe regarding the function of sex, are we to believe that all forms of sex are ligitimate simply because they happen? Why do we decry incest, rape, and bestiality?

Because they are harmful to at least one of the parties involved. Consensual sex is not. And be honest, you don't have sex just for making babies, do you?

[Shirty]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Equality is not a scientific property, sorry; you need to go beyond science even to start talking about equality, rights etc. Scientifically, no two people are equal; we are all wonderfully unique - all seven billion of us. Try again.

Oh I'm not trying to make it scientific, merely indicating that a person is a person regardless of gender, age, sexuality, race or religious persuasion.

I'm far too uneducated to read science into things, last time I studied anything scientific was in 1998 doing my GCSEs. I did acceptably well, but not enough to pursue in my further education.

So my overly simplistic example may well not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but if you peel away the centuries of religious dogma (not singling out any particular branch) we are all animals with free will and the only essential 'morals' are those which enable us to coexist with our fellows. Everything else is an invention of religious societies and this explains the disparate beliefs held across the religions of the world, and indeed the different denominations of individual religions.

Personally? I respect other people's rights to do as they please, and expect the same in return. I generally do not hold a moral stance on non-criminal actions.

[VipersGratitude]

Can I just reiterate my question on when marriage stopped being about love, mutual respect and understanding and began to be solely about sex?

[Shirty]

If sexual intercourse that cannot be described as coitus and/or with no possibility of procreation is wrong, then surely it follows that masturbation is wrong. The bible reinforces this standpoint. Without wishing to derail the thread I would be interested to hear either support or refutation of this from a religious standpoint.